8.08.2008
viveza: new blog up!
The first entry is up at viveza, my new place over on WordPress.com. Add it to your RSS feed reader and join the discussion!
8.04.2008
Newsflash!
Amusing: CNN uses "disses" in article title. Can you do that? Apparently the L.A. Police Chief is "dissing" the proposed "Britney Law" against paparazzi. Interesting.
8.01.2008
Packing Up
As much as I adore Blogspot/Blogger, I'm thinking I'm moving things over to Word Press soon--and if I'm relocating in real life, why shouldn't I do so online, as well?
Stay tuned for more information.
Stay tuned for more information.
7.30.2008
Ethics of Consumption
Given the state of the economy, it's not surprising that Americans are looking for shopping tips. This isn't new for those for whom money has always been tight, and neither is it new for many Jesus-followers. Some of the Christian families I know are expert bargain-buyers, in fact: Wal-mart, TJ Maxx, Aldi, tax holidays, semi-annual sales, and cooking at home are a way of life. I didn't grow up in this culture, but I was socialized into an upper-middle class adaptation. Today, most of my friends looking to save money are trying to either 1) survive during/post-college or 2) live on less to give more.
Today I want to take issue with the latter goal.
Many of us have thought for so long that we need to pursue simpler lifestyles by buying fewer things, therefore spending less money. Those savings can be reinvested in churches and ministries, other non-profits, electing candidates that will maintain justice (at least better than their opponents), giving food to homeless people-- whatever. And I'm not proposing we stop doing that.
I do think, however, than much of our cheap shopping can be as destructive as it is generous. While we save a thousand dollars to give to the poor, we spend thousands to pay greedy CEOs, only to have pennies returned to the women and men who sewed those Payless shoes or exposed themselves to toxic chemicals for the well-being of our brightly colored vegetables. What good is our thousand dollar gift to those exploited by the businesses we support?
So I spend more money. On organic vegetables. On a fair-trade computer case made from recycled plastic bags that once littered streets in India. On 90% post-consumer product toilet paper. I try to tip well (right or not, I also practice a pretty arbitrary form a affirmative action in my tipping based on who my heart goes out to that day), and I boycott Wal-mart. Put with my refusal to consider Ramen a meal, these choices place me far from claiming the cheapest lifestyle. But I don't think cheap necessarily means just. Sometimes we are called to spend more money on the same amount of stuff that we could buy for a cheaper price.
There are a lot of things I haven't figured out:
*How do I afford to have a conscience when I'm on a tight budget?
*What should we encourage the poor do? If the market response to increasing demands for just products, will they be left with even fewer options?
*Should I consider extra money I spend as "giving" if it's doing more good than simply saving might? Why do we feel our money must clearly fit only one box, anyway?
*How do we hold our wants in check and steer away from any kind of selfish "spending more will help more and more trickle down!" mentality just because we're buying justly?
And, importantly: Why, if I'm buying something I need and something ethically responsible, do I still sometimes feel guilty for spending more money?
For the present, I don't count that extra $30 as giving, but I don't always reach 10%. I don't display consistency, depending on how recently I've been paid. I don't know if I'm a fool who should wait until I have a "real job" to spend intentionally. For that matter, I don't even know all the time if I'm truly concerned for justice or merely turning into one of those elitist liberals that think they're hip because they spend lots of money on trendy political statements.
But these ideas and questions have been tossing themselves around in my head for the past couple years. How do we love our neighbor through shopping?
Today I want to take issue with the latter goal.
Many of us have thought for so long that we need to pursue simpler lifestyles by buying fewer things, therefore spending less money. Those savings can be reinvested in churches and ministries, other non-profits, electing candidates that will maintain justice (at least better than their opponents), giving food to homeless people-- whatever. And I'm not proposing we stop doing that.
I do think, however, than much of our cheap shopping can be as destructive as it is generous. While we save a thousand dollars to give to the poor, we spend thousands to pay greedy CEOs, only to have pennies returned to the women and men who sewed those Payless shoes or exposed themselves to toxic chemicals for the well-being of our brightly colored vegetables. What good is our thousand dollar gift to those exploited by the businesses we support?
So I spend more money. On organic vegetables. On a fair-trade computer case made from recycled plastic bags that once littered streets in India. On 90% post-consumer product toilet paper. I try to tip well (right or not, I also practice a pretty arbitrary form a affirmative action in my tipping based on who my heart goes out to that day), and I boycott Wal-mart. Put with my refusal to consider Ramen a meal, these choices place me far from claiming the cheapest lifestyle. But I don't think cheap necessarily means just. Sometimes we are called to spend more money on the same amount of stuff that we could buy for a cheaper price.
There are a lot of things I haven't figured out:
*How do I afford to have a conscience when I'm on a tight budget?
*What should we encourage the poor do? If the market response to increasing demands for just products, will they be left with even fewer options?
*Should I consider extra money I spend as "giving" if it's doing more good than simply saving might? Why do we feel our money must clearly fit only one box, anyway?
*How do we hold our wants in check and steer away from any kind of selfish "spending more will help more and more trickle down!" mentality just because we're buying justly?
And, importantly: Why, if I'm buying something I need and something ethically responsible, do I still sometimes feel guilty for spending more money?
For the present, I don't count that extra $30 as giving, but I don't always reach 10%. I don't display consistency, depending on how recently I've been paid. I don't know if I'm a fool who should wait until I have a "real job" to spend intentionally. For that matter, I don't even know all the time if I'm truly concerned for justice or merely turning into one of those elitist liberals that think they're hip because they spend lots of money on trendy political statements.
But these ideas and questions have been tossing themselves around in my head for the past couple years. How do we love our neighbor through shopping?
Pasadena Tidbits 2
* Census stuff requires some extra calculations if you think the Bureau's system of separating Hispanic "ethnicity" from "race." Here's some numbers I think are accurate (also from http://factfinder.census.gov/):
-33.4% Hispanic ("of any race"--aka Mexicans, Argentinians, and Puetro Ricans all count the same)
-39.1% white non-Hispanic
-14.0% black non-Hispanic
-0.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native non-Hispanic (aww, only 324 people!)
-9.9% Asian non-Hispanic
-?.?% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander non-Hispanic (We don't know... the Census won't give info about how many of them are Latino because there are too few of them to allow for that without an invasion of their privacy. Latino or not, the 2000 census found 132 of them, so roughly 0.1% of the population, unless they're all Latino as well?)
-?.?%- Some other race alone non-Hispanic-- they also won't say.
-1.5% Some other race alone or with another race non-Hispanic
-3.1% Multiracial non-Hispanic
So that effectively must mean...
-14.3% of Pasadena is "white Hispanic"
-0.4% of Pasadena is "black Hispanic"
-0.5% of Pasadena is "American Indian/Alaskan Native Hispanic"
-0.1% of Pasadena is "Asian Hispanic"
-14.5% of Pasadena is "Some other race alone or with another race Hispanic"
-2.3% of Pasadena is "Multiracial Hispanic"
=32.1% of the population... (suppose those billions of Pacific Islander Hispanics and significant figures explain the difference?)
I have no idea what "Some Other Race" must mean to most people-- I always want Middle Easterners to check that box because they don't get one of their own, but NO, they're supposed to call themselves "white"-- I think it'd be much more useful to elimate "white" altogether and instead ask for "European" ancestry or something of that nature. Having lighter skin doesn't make anyone automatically Anglo, or Finnish or Hungarian or Greek for that matter. I am proud that InterVarsity usually provides a "Middle Eastern" box and sometimes even distinguishes between regions of Asia. ;o)
Back to the topic of race in Pasadena: I actually had a friend tell me this summer, "Sometimes I forget you're moving to California and think you're just moving to Asia!" A rather interesting/awkward/funny comment, I thought. Ironically, I occasionally find myself thinking I'm moving to Latin America. Fittingly, Fuller offers classes in both Korean and Spanish.
-33.4% Hispanic ("of any race"--aka Mexicans, Argentinians, and Puetro Ricans all count the same)
-39.1% white non-Hispanic
-14.0% black non-Hispanic
-0.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native non-Hispanic (aww, only 324 people!)
-9.9% Asian non-Hispanic
-?.?% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander non-Hispanic (We don't know... the Census won't give info about how many of them are Latino because there are too few of them to allow for that without an invasion of their privacy. Latino or not, the 2000 census found 132 of them, so roughly 0.1% of the population, unless they're all Latino as well?)
-?.?%- Some other race alone non-Hispanic-- they also won't say.
-1.5% Some other race alone or with another race non-Hispanic
-3.1% Multiracial non-Hispanic
So that effectively must mean...
-14.3% of Pasadena is "white Hispanic"
-0.4% of Pasadena is "black Hispanic"
-0.5% of Pasadena is "American Indian/Alaskan Native Hispanic"
-0.1% of Pasadena is "Asian Hispanic"
-14.5% of Pasadena is "Some other race alone or with another race Hispanic"
-2.3% of Pasadena is "Multiracial Hispanic"
=32.1% of the population... (suppose those billions of Pacific Islander Hispanics and significant figures explain the difference?)
I have no idea what "Some Other Race" must mean to most people-- I always want Middle Easterners to check that box because they don't get one of their own, but NO, they're supposed to call themselves "white"-- I think it'd be much more useful to elimate "white" altogether and instead ask for "European" ancestry or something of that nature. Having lighter skin doesn't make anyone automatically Anglo, or Finnish or Hungarian or Greek for that matter. I am proud that InterVarsity usually provides a "Middle Eastern" box and sometimes even distinguishes between regions of Asia. ;o)
Back to the topic of race in Pasadena: I actually had a friend tell me this summer, "Sometimes I forget you're moving to California and think you're just moving to Asia!" A rather interesting/awkward/funny comment, I thought. Ironically, I occasionally find myself thinking I'm moving to Latin America. Fittingly, Fuller offers classes in both Korean and Spanish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
